Charity turf wars

I took a later bus than usual to work this morning because I had a breakfast meeting. The route I ride actually runs a couple different ways depending on what time of day it is (this is posted, not drivers improvising, mind you), and then bus I took this morning goes through Lemoyne and over the Market Street bridge, rather than picking up 83 directly out of New Cumberland.

Anyhow, as a result of that, I noticed something I'd never seen before. There was what I presume to be a Salvation Army clothing and shoes drop station in the parking lot of a local business in Lemoyne. What caught my eye was the message on the station: Donate clothing and shoes only (emphasis mine) to Salvation Army. the "most trusted" charity in America: Doing the most good.

Now, I tend not to see or pay attention to too many advertisements, so it's quite possible that this particular slogan/pitch has been out there very publically for quite a while and I've never noticed it. Regardless, it really puts me off, and disturbs me. I understand free market, and capitalism, and all of that, but have we really "advanced" to the point where we've got charities that feel the need to say "My charity is better than your charity", and in such a public manner? I have nothing against the Salvation Army, and believe they do great work, but can't they find away to promote themselves without the implied slight to other very noble, hard-working charities?

Think about what's being said here. Donate ONLY to us. Why? Because we're the most trusted charity. Implication: Can you really trust any other charity with your old clothes and shoes? Doing the most good. Implication: We can do more good with your old clothes and shoes than any other charity. Really? Are you somehow going to use my old shirt to clothe two people instead of one? Because if that's the case, I've got a much better idea for your ad campaign...

I get that in some ways, charities really are in competition with each other. If you give money to one charity, you can't give that money to another, and there's a cost of doing business as a charity, so if the bills can't be paid, the charity can't exist. But seriously, can we at least keep the "my charity is better than your charity" stuff out of the marketing campaign? And maybe, just maybe, they should focus on energy on trying to generate donations from people who aren't donating anywhere, rather than trying to sabotage the good work another group is doing. Feeding and clothing the poor doesn't seem like an appropriate arena for a turf war, but maybe that's just me.

UPDATE - Okay, so I'm an idiot. Jeff has made an excellent point via comment about what the first line was actually intended to mean. And of course, he's right. I do think it would have been more clear to have said "Donate only clothing...", and I still don't like the comparative nature of the rest of the language (especially "Doing the most good"), which is probably what led me to misinterpret the first line. However, describing what was going on as a "turf war" does seem a bit strong at this point, and I thank Jeff for injecting some sanity to my rant.